Sidney H. Asch

Born 1919

📰 News & journal →

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Wilson v. Wilson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984-04-17 · cited 30×
This case involved an appeal from a divorce judgment in a short marriage (less than one year of cohabitation, no children) concerning the trial court's awards of equitable distribution, maintenance, insurance coverage, and beneficiary designations under the defendant's employment benefits and pension. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing the lump-sum equitable distribution payment from $45,000 to $15,000 and weekly maintenance from $350 to $200 for three years, while eliminating requirements for health/dental insurance and beneficiary status on life insurance and pension benefits. The court reasoned that Domestic Relations Law §236 requires consideration of statutory factors such as marriage duration and the parties' circumstances, and found the trial court's awards excessive given the limited marital relationship, plaintiff's independent earning capacity of $17,550 annually, and lack of significant contributions to marital property. A partial dissent would have further limited or eliminated the awards to restore the parties to their pre-marriage positions.
family law
Sun Yau Ko v. Lincoln Savings Bank
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984-03-01 · cited 17×
The case involved plaintiffs seeking to recover the value of gold bars stolen from their safe deposit box during a bank burglary, based on a bailor-bailee relationship with the defendant bank. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that the bank had met its burden by establishing the burglary and its security measures through an unchallenged affidavit, shifting the burden to plaintiffs to raise a factual issue of negligence. Plaintiffs failed to do so, as their attorney's unsupported affidavit was inadequate and they had chosen not to conduct discovery despite having the opportunity. The court rejected reliance on precedents like Veihelmann v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co. because the bank had affirmatively shown the cause of loss was burglary, and it distinguished the dissent's concerns about the alarm system activation as unsupported by the record.
propertyproceduretorts & liability

Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Wilson v. Wilson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984-04-17 · cited 30×
This case involved an appeal from a divorce judgment in a short marriage (less than one year of cohabitation, no children) concerning the trial court's awards of equitable distribution, maintenance, insurance coverage, and beneficiary designations under the defendant's employment benefits and pension. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing the lump-sum equitable distribution payment from $45,000 to $15,000 and weekly maintenance from $350 to $200 for three years, while eliminating requirements for health/dental insurance and beneficiary status on life insurance and pension benefits. The court reasoned that Domestic Relations Law §236 requires consideration of statutory factors such as marriage duration and the parties' circumstances, and found the trial court's awards excessive given the limited marital relationship, plaintiff's independent earning capacity of $17,550 annually, and lack of significant contributions to marital property. A partial dissent would have further limited or eliminated the awards to restore the parties to their pre-marriage positions.
family law
Sun Yau Ko v. Lincoln Savings Bank
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984-03-01 · cited 17×
The case involved plaintiffs seeking to recover the value of gold bars stolen from their safe deposit box during a bank burglary, based on a bailor-bailee relationship with the defendant bank. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that the bank had met its burden by establishing the burglary and its security measures through an unchallenged affidavit, shifting the burden to plaintiffs to raise a factual issue of negligence. Plaintiffs failed to do so, as their attorney's unsupported affidavit was inadequate and they had chosen not to conduct discovery despite having the opportunity. The court rejected reliance on precedents like Veihelmann v. Manufacturers Safe Deposit Co. because the bank had affirmatively shown the cause of loss was burglary, and it distinguished the dissent's concerns about the alarm system activation as unsupported by the record.
propertyproceduretorts & liability